RAJO @ RAJWA @ RAJENDRA MANDAL versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 484 · Decided: 25-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
RAJO @ RAJWA @ RAJENDRA MANDAL
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s). 252 of 2023)
AUGUST 25, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Petitioner serving a sentence of life 
imprisonment for commission of off ences punishable u/ss.302/34 of the 
IPC, 1860 and s.27 of the Arms Act, 1959 sought direction for his premature 
release on the ground that he has been in custody for 24 years without grant 
of remission or parole.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Remission – Grant of:
Held: Remission Board rejected the petitioner’s application for 
premature release twice – The reason for rejection of the petitioner’s 
application was the adverse report submitted by the presiding judge in 
the fi rst round, which was perfunctorily relied upon and reiterated in the 
report submitted by the then presiding judge in the second round as well – 
Both the reports submitted by the presiding judges (at the relevant time), 
demonstrate a casual opinion, based solely on the judicial record which 
presumably consisted of the fi nding of guilt, by the trial court and High Court 
– Overemphasis on the presiding judge’s opinion and complete disregard 
of comments of other authorities, while arriving at its conclusion, would 
render the appropriate government’s decision on a remission application, 
unsustainable – The appropriate government, should take a holistic view 
of all the opinions received (in terms of the relevant rules), including the 
judicial view of the presiding judge of the concerned court, keeping in mind 
the purpose and objective, of remission – Remission Board to reconsider the 
petitioner’s application for remission afresh – Concerned presiding judge 
to provide an opinion on the petitioner’s application for premature release, 
by examining the judicial record, and provide adequate reasoning, taking 
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 484 : 2023 INSC 771
484
485
into account the factors laid down in Laxman Naskar case – Given the long 
period of incarceration already suff ered by the writ petitioner and his age, 
the Remission Board should render its decision, preferably within three 
months from the date of this judgment.[Paras 14-17, 25]
Sentencing – Judicial exercise vis-à-vis executive function – 
Statutory and Constitutional powers– s.432 CrPC; Articles 72, 161, 
Constitution of India:
Held: Sentencing is a judicial exercise of power – The act thereafter 
of executing the sentence awarded, however, is a purely executive function 
which includes the grant of remission, commutation, pardon, reprieves, or 
suspension of sentence – This executive power is traceable to Article 72 
and 161 of the Constitution of India – Whilst the statutory (u/s.432 CrPC) 
and constitutional (under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution) powers 
are distinct- the former limited power, is still an imprint of the latter (much 
wider power), and must be understood as such and placed in this context – 
This executive power which is inherently discretionary in nature, has to be 
exercised fairly, reasonably, and not arbitrarily – Absence to do so, would 
compel the court to exercise its judicial review and in appropriate cases 
remit the matter for reconsideration – Procedure laid out in s.432(2), has 
been held to be mandatory.[Paras 9 and 10]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Remission – Parameters to 
be considered – Discussed.[Para 11]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Remission – Role of presiding 
judge’s view – Weightage to be attached:
Held: The discretion that the executive is empowered with in executing 
a sentence, would be denuded of its content, if the presiding judge’s view- 
which is formed in all likelihood, largely (if not solely) on the basis of the 
judicial record- is mechanically followed by the concerned authority – Such 
an approach has the potential to strike at the heart, and subvert the concept 
of remission- as a reward and incentive encouraging actions and behaviour 
geared towards reformation- in a modern legal system – If the presiding 
judge’s report is only refl ective of the facts and circumstances that led to 
the conclusion of the convict’s guilt, and is merely a reiteration of those 
circumstances available to the judge at the time of sentencing (some 14 or 
more years earlier, as the case may be), then the appropriate government 
should attach weight to this fi nding, accordingly – Such a report, cannot be 
RAJO @ RAJWA @ RAJENDRA MANDAL v. TH

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.